Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Isnt his raising an objection at this late stage a conflict of interest?
Also,someone not far from here and had a Meade LX200 in his observatory – which was in a conservation area. He appears to have got round it by making the observatory walls out of stone and flint (local materials) and making the roof dark.
What were the grounds for rejection? Was it because the building is listed, because its in a conservation area or something more mundane like being over 2.4m high and near a boundary?
You got more than me!
Yeah, the coding is fun. More fiddly, than difficult. I wrote some in VB6 a few years ago – that used Source Extractor output, but it could just as easily have used Pisa or Daophot instead. I imagine many would use Python instead of VB6 these days. 🙂
The problem is it went from owners who wanted to make a living to owners who wanted to be rich with the minimum possible effort.
You see it in business a lot. Buy something good, reduce standards, cut costs and milk that asset!
In Salisbury it was hopeful when I went to bed, but at 02:50 and 04:15 it was thick cloud…. The sort of cloud that says, there may be a moon in there somewhere but you’ve no idea where.
Ho hum. Perhaps I should have moved east when I retired.
The magazine changed after it was taken over. It went from being focused on the real enthusiasts with good (substantial) equipment review, observing accounts from experienced observers and cutting edge stuff, to a slim shadow of its former self and devoid of interest to all but beginners.
It still has some good writers, but a lot of the content is fairly lightweight.
Shame.
Yep. Its no big deal. We disagree. It happens.
But, should I respect that saying from Feynman more because he was an authority on quantum electrodynamics?
Ho hum. Back to the gardening.
I think that, if you look back at my posting, you will find that I don’t say that it is the worst. If Owen wants to defend that position, thats entirely up to him.
If asked an opinion, I would say it is much the same as all the others, only with a more UK slant in equipment choices. But thats hardly pouring praise on it! Some discussions will be sound and informed, some average, others will be hijacked by fools.
The net gave us access to more knowledge and with that came a greatly increased supply of gibberish. I think you will find that what I said can be summed up as “The advice may only be worth what you paid for it”.
I wish good luck to those of you who do help add quality to the fora and admire your tenacity, but find that what I have to do already fills my waking hours.
Also, I don’t think its sniping to point out that a source of information may be significantly suspect.
I don’t know about Owen, but I certainly find you have to take whats there with a large pinch of salt.
I just looked at a discussion in the deep sky section about whether M31 was a naked eye object and another in the imaging section on what affordable CCD camera to buy. Didnt exactly inspire confidence.
Looking more generally, there were postings from participants that were at best naive/lazy (even some with 20,000 posts), others who slavishly followed someones opinions because they had taken some nice pics and a few were clearly just plain biased in favour of stuff they had owned. I have no doubt it also has a percentage of observers who manage to “see” rather more than their instrument actually delivered and enjoy the immediacy of the applause available.
Personally, I couldnt say its worse than CloudyNights or any other fora but, while appreciating a proportion of participants will undoubtedly know their stuff, theres very much a need to be able to filter out the noise – and that can be difficult while you are yourself inexperienced.
You can understand Owen’s concern though, as (above) an experienced observer manages it twice in 30 years while using a 300mm Mewlon and some other very useful sounding instruments and yet its now being seen in scopes much smaller than that used to discover it. Yes, optics are better now and baffling has improved, but the MKI eyeball hasnt changed much (and mine could certainly do with an upgrade).
And I’m with him on newsgroups, sometimes the content is low quality.
Raises an important question about observing dim companions of bright stars.
Probably more convincing if it had also been unknown in the west at the same time.
Would love to see the artefact that proves them right.
Nice looking data. For those of us who are ignorant of all things RF, what is Moonbounce?
Also what sort of equipment did you need to accomplish such a good result?
The “Still Alive” signal should hit ground 15:39UT today together with a bunch of status telemetry. First results tomorrow hopefully.
Should be fun. An exciting time to be alive.
Did they also record changes in Mira? You would think that if they are paying attention that closely then they should have.
It says Henry Hatfield contributed observations. Would this be to the defunct BAA Section associated with artificial satellites, do you think?
Not arguing against DAOPHOT at all as I use it as part of a processing pipeline I have too.
Wouldnt say DAOPHOT is any more unfriendly than any other, merely that IRAF can be poorly documented and debugged. I find Starlink more robust, but as I wrote some of it, I would say that.
There is a version of DAOPHOT available for Python too – I always found IRAF as user friendly as a punch in the mouth and poorly debugged. The Python DAOPHOT seems to work okay for me. The major difference over the Fortran version is that it doesnt handle a bad pixel mask. Execution times similar (having no bad pixels to worrry about makes life lots easier).
I must admit I was under the impression DAOPHOT assumes a Gaussian profile so it can get unhappy with distorted images – theres a parameter for limiting how eccentric it will tolerate.
I did a quick study a year or two back and looked at Source Extractor, PISA and DAOPHOT. Each had its quirks. DAOPHOT was primarely aimed at stars while Source Extractor and PISA could do both stars and galaxy photometry. Source Extractor was very good but the documentation a little incomplete and PISA was by far the most memory efficient. When the source was star shaped they all did similarly in terms of the detections, but Source Extractor could use the WCS (I don’t think PISA did, but I might be wrong). Bottom line was they all had efficient detection approaches and if you already had code to handle the pixel space coordinate to Ra/Dec conversion, each was well worth having.
